Frequently Asked Questions

What areas are you people trying to protect from drilling?

Everywhere from the mainland to a line twelve miles south of the Coast's barrier islands. This includes the Mississippi Sound and all state waters to three miles south of the islands) and a strip of Federal waters extending from three miles to twelve miles south of the islands. Drilling within this region would be visible to residents and tourists visiting the Coast and the islands, would risk polluting sensitive waters, and would risk damage leading even to complete loss of the barrier islands that figure so heavily in Coast history, tourism, and storm protection.

Why 12 nautical miles south of the islands?

This is a compromise to allow testing and drilling without damage. Twelve miles' distance keeps the rigs beyond the sight of coastal high-rise developments and wilderness areas on the islands. It is also far enough out to provide some safety from spills, noise and pollution caused by all testing and exploration.

Can the State of Mississippi stop drilling and exploration twelve miles south of the barrier islands?

Yes. The Governor has full authority to stop this activity in state waters, and he has the authority to halt current seismic testing and federal leasing activity in federal waters under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Other states such as Florida and North Carolina have used this authority to stop or limit testing and drilling in federal waters adjacent their state waters.

Is it too late to stop testing and drilling?

No. There has been no testing or drilling in the state waters and we can prohibit federal testing and drilling under existing laws and treaties. Florida has kept this activity one hundred miles from the coasts; we think our demand for only a twelve-mile buffer is quite reasonable by comparison.

What impact does the National Energy Bill have on this issue?

Very little. It has no effect at all on drilling in state waters, and no effect on the laws and treaties under which we can stop drilling in Federal waters within 12 miles of the islands. In fact, it could give us many allies in our Congressional efforts to pass a prohibition and federal buyout of the mineral rights to protect the islands. The act does require the federal government to pay higher royalty payments to Mississippi for deep-water rigs that already produce in Federal waters near the state. These payments to the state are estimated to be $34 million per year.

Wouldn't drilling in state waters solve the state's financial problems?

No. Even drilling proponents' optimistic estimates would result in only about $20 million per year (gross) to the state from drilling in state waters. Included in this amount is about $2 million dollars which would be split between the three coastal counties. This is before the costs to the state of administering and policing the drilling are deducted, not to mention the cost of any infrastructure modifications or incentives the state makes to accommodate or encourage drilling. After about 10 years, the state's reserves would be exhausted, and these payments would come to an end. In contrast, the gaming and tourist industries contributed well over half a billion dollars of income to the state last year, and are expected to be growing and paying taxes indefinitely -- if we protect our natural assets. This income is jeopardized by the damage to the area's growing reputation, ecology, and visual uniqueness from drilling within sight of the islands.

Can't Alabama and Louisiana “steal” Mississippi gas without paying?

No. Extracting gas and oil isn't quite as simple as drinking a milkshake through a straw; if it were, it wouldn't take 71 rigs in Alabama state waters to pump out their natural gas. Instead gas reserves tend to occur in localized pockets that require multiple distributed rigs. The State of Mississippi can and should be negotiating an agreement with bordering states to recover compensation for any of our mineral rights or natural resources being extracted from under Mississippi waters near state borders. If negotiations fail, The Attorney General can seek relief from the courts as we are doing to protect underground water supplies in north Mississippi being pumped out by Tennessee. Getting into a drilling contest with Dauphin Island is not an acceptable solution.

Won't testing & drilling lower gas prices or make the U.S. more energy independent?

No. The oil and gas industry estimates that no significant oil (the source of gasoline and diesel fuel) exists in state waters; the industry insists state waters are only of interest for natural gas. The area that we want to put off-limits represents less than one tenth of one percent of estimated natural gas supplies in the Gulf and has no impact on national security or energy independence. In fact, the oil and gas industry's most optimistic estimate indicates that the total amount of natural gas in Mississippi state waters would be sufficient to satisfy U.S. demand for only 4 to 6 days.

Won't testing and drilling create jobs?

No. Even drilling proponents concede that no significant positive economic impacts will result on the Coast from testing and drilling. Rigs would almost certainly be serviced from existing facilities in Louisiana or Alabama. Mississippi companies that might make some money from this activity, including offshore service companies and those building and refitting oil rigs, are among those who oppose testing and drilling.

Won't drilling platforms improve fishing?

Not in the areas we are interested in protecting. The areas in state waters south of the islands are all shallow. As any experienced fisherman can tell you, rigs only improve fishing in deep water, where there are few other gathering places for fish communities. In the shallow waters near the islands, fish already have lots of places to gather. Existing rigs in deeper waters beyond the 12-mile limit will continue to provide good fishing opportunities. Beyond this, rigs and production platforms fare the least desirable way to attract fish to a specific area given the possibility of leaks and contamination. Artificial reefs --- many of which are already in place and many more of which are planned --- produce rich fish habitat, create no pollution, and do not threaten the Coast's reputation as a tourist destination with unsightly industrial structures obstructing natural views.

Has there been an economic impact study on this activity?

Yes. A nationally recognized economic research firm has studied this issue and concluded that negative impacts on tourism and costs to the state and Coast would likely outweigh any economic benefits.

Why is this being proposed?

Moving leasing authority to MDA made us a target for big energy. Mississippi has not leased any state waters for testing or drilling prior to SB 2653 last year. That bill moved leasing from the regulators who had enforced a moratorium to the developers who would promote drilling. We then became one of the few states that have encouraged testing and drilling in state waters. This sent the signal to oil and gas companies that Mississippi is an easy target. In addition, drilling near and under national wilderness areas like our islands might set a precedent for attacks on other national park areas.

Shouldn't Mississippi allow seismic testing?

No. Unless state and federal statutory prohibitions are put into place against drilling and production in the Sound to twelve nautical miles south of the islands, there should be no testing. The only reason to allow testing should be to support the state’s claims to recover revenues derived by other states from taking Mississippi's underground minerals from reserves near state borders. Testing is not harmless -- marine testing damages aquatic life, and anticipated testing on the islands could seriously injure the plant communities that hold the islands together. In spite of repeated assurances to the public that they would allow nothing to harm the islands, the MDA and DMR have steadfastly refused to definitively bar such potentially destructive testing on the islands. If MDA and DMR seriously mean to protect the islands, why won't they put it in writing in the regulations?